IntechOpen

Home > Books > Organizational Culture - Cultural Change and Technology

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Does Stress Type Matter? Clarifying the Relationships between Public Service Motivation, Work-Related Stress, and Employee Attitudes

Written By

Leonard Bright

Submitted: 02 June 2023 Reviewed: 31 July 2023 Published: 08 September 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.112707

Organizational Culture IntechOpen
Organizational Culture Cultural Change and Technology Edited by Muddassar Sarfraz

From the Edited Volume

Organizational Culture - Cultural Change and Technology

Edited by Muddassar Sarfraz and Wasi Ul Hassan Shah

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

48 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

This study explored the relationship that public service motivation (PSM) has to environmental, organizational, and job stressors, as well as the relationships that those stressors have to job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Based on a sample of frontline federal employees working as airport baggage and security screeners for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the state of Oregon, the findings of this study revealed a complex pattern of relationships. PSM was found to be positively related to the environmental stressors, negatively related to the organizational stressors, and not directly related to the job stressors. The primary path through which PSM impacts turnover intentions and job satisfaction was found to exist through its relationship with the organizational stressors. The respondents with high levels of PSM reported significantly lower organizational stress, which increased their job satisfaction, which then lowered their turnover intentions. While PSM had no direct relationship to the job stressors, it was found to be indirectly related through organizational stress. That is, high levels of PSM were related with lower organizational stress, which lowered the salience of the job stressors, which then increased job satisfaction. The implications of this study are discussed.

Keywords

  • public management
  • public service motivation
  • stress
  • satisfaction
  • turnover

1. Introduction

Stress is a common characteristic of most work environments, and in our fast-changing society, the number of highly stressed employees is on the rise. According to a recent poll, two-thirds of professional employees have reported that they are more stressed than they were five years ago [1]. Understanding the causes and consequences of stress should be a top concern for public managers and scholars alike. Stress has been linked to a variety of physical and psychological disorders [2]. Alleviating stress in the workplace is likely to improve job satisfaction, which has been found to be negatively associated with turnover [3, 4, 5, 6].

Scholars have also explored work stress in the public sector. Recent polls have suggested that government workplaces are among the most stressful workplaces, when compared to private and nonprofit workplaces [7]. This fact may dampen the already strained public sector recruitment efforts. One potential solution to this conundrum is public service motivation (PSM), which is an altruistic need that attracts individuals to contribute to the well-being of their communities and to public service work. There is a large body of research that have explored the benefits of PSM on individual behavior in work organizations. This research has confirmed that PSM has both direct and indirect influences on a range of work outcomes such as job satisfaction [8, 9], performance [10, 11], and well-being [12] among public employees. However, one area of the literature that is still unresolved is the extent to which PSM reduces or increases stress in public sector workplaces. Some have theorized that high levels of PSM may cause individuals to be more resilient to the stress that is associated with public service [13]. However, empirical research has not confirmed this hypothesis. PSM has been found to be positively related to work stress [14, 15, 16].

There is a need for more research on this topic for at least two reasons. For one, there is a need to better understand the process whereby PSM impacts a wider range of stressors. Many existing studies in this area of research have used global unidimensional measures of work stress that conceal its more specialized and diverse sources. As Jiang et al. [17] have stated, the field has “failed to deeply explore or classify the sources of work-related stress as well as the mechanisms that influence it”. This is important given the fact that the distinguishing aspects of work stress in the public sector stress come not only from the difficulty of the formal job tasks but also from the environmental of large impersonal bureaucracies and the scrutiny that public organizations routinely receive from the public. Exploring the connections that PSM has on a wider range of stressors will help the field build a deeper understanding of the extent to which PSM is a detrimental or beneficial predictor of stress.

More research is also needed to explore the connections between the stressors that are related to PSM and work outcomes. Scholars have argued that the positive association that PSM has to work stress is an example of the dark side of PSM [14, 15]. However, empirical research is needed that connects the stress that is positively associated with PSM to the attitudes and behaviors of employees. Given the diverse sources of stress, do all the stressors that are associated with PSM lead to lower job satisfaction and higher turnover among public employees? Addressing this question would boost the importance of fostering strategies (i.e., person-organizational fit) that have been shown to help mitigate the negative effects of stress [14, 18], and it will help pinpoint which stressors and related work outcomes need to be addressed.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship that PSM has to a range of work-related stressors and their impact on the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of a sample of federal employees. This paper is organized into several parts. First, this paper will explore research on work stress and various sources of stress in the public sector workplace. Second, the hypotheses that this study will test will be presented. Third, the methodology used to test this study’s hypotheses will be explored. Lastly, this paper will conclude with a discussion of the findings and implications of research to the research and practice in public administration.

Advertisement

2. Work stress and strain

Work-related stress is one of the most researched areas in general literature. While there is no universally agreed upon definition of stress, there are several widely used definitions and concepts [19]. One of the most widely used definitions of stress was given by Folkman and Lazarus [20] who defined it as a “relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being”. Others have conceptualized stress as a function of the level of control, resources, and/or support that are available to an individual to address the job demands [21, 22]. Still more have framed stress as a misfit between the characteristics of individuals and the demands of their environment [23, 24]. In most models and conceptualizations, stress by itself does not automatically lead to aversive outcomes. Stress will become aversive when it leads to a strain, which is a condition that occurs when stress surpasses the available resources, coping strategies, and control available to manage it. The consequences of stress and/or strain on the physical and psychological health of employees, as well as their performance, commitment, and satisfaction, are well-documented [25, 26].

2.1 Sources of stress and public sector work environments

The public sector is home to many of the most stressful occupations, such as corrections and policing, nursing, firefighting, and other government occupations [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33], even though the findings are mix in terms of whether public sector workplaces are more stressful than other sectors [34, 35]. The source and type of stress in the public sector varies greatly. There is a plethora of scale and typologies of stress that can be used to understand stressors in the public sector [28, 36, 37, 38]. Most of the typologies of stress can be organized into at least three levels: job, organizational, and environment characteristics.

For one, job level stressors stem from the formal job responsibilities of employees. Job responsibilities vary in terms of the exposure that employees have to emotional demands, co-worker relationships, and work role conflicts, and overload. Jobs that expose employees to high emotional demands, poor co-worker relationships, and tasks that are difficult to address are associated with higher stress [27, 30, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41]. Next, organizational-level stress stems from the internal characteristics of the organizations, such as goal ambiguity, climate, participative opportunities, and reward/compensation strategies. For example, there are scholars that suggest that public organizations are unique in terms of the ambiguity of their goals [42, 43], even though some have challenged this assertion [44]. Nevertheless, goal clarity has important consequences on the attitudes and behaviors of employees, such as stress [45, 46]. Work environments that contain ambiguous goals, few participative opportunities, and unfair reward strategies are associated with higher stress [30, 32, 39, 41].

Finally, environmental stress stems from the characteristics of an organization’s environment, such as media coverage and citizen perceptions/support. The mass media is a powerful institution that has shaped the behavior of organizations, governmental and nongovernmental alike. Many believe that the media is essential for democracy to thrive [47, 48]. As Blumler and Gurevitch [49] described, “the media are thus responsible for providing the political information necessary to allow citizens to make political decisions and cast their ballot on the basis of informed choice”. Nonetheless, scholars have long argued that the media’s coverage of democratic institutions tends to lower the public’s confidence in these institutions by cultivating negative perceptions of those institutions [50, 51, 52]. There is a body of research that has sought to clarify the process of how what is called the “mediatization” of public organizations effects political institutions [53, 54, 55, 56]. This research revealed that the incompatibility between the media and bureaucratic logic is linked to media-stress and fear among public servants [57, 58].

The messaging of the mass media impacts the opinions that citizens hold of public organizations and their support of their practices. Citizens are the ultimate beneficiaries of government action, even though national polls suggest that American citizens maintain a high level of skepticism and distrust of the federal government. According to the Pew Research Center [59], only 20% of the Americans believe that government can be trusted to “do the right thing” always or most of the time. However, environmental stresses may not impact all public organizations and employees equally. Organizations and employees who are more experienced with negative media attention and citizen criticism have developed effective coping and other organizational strategies that lessen the impact of this stress [60]. Like job and organizational stressors, environmental stressors are associated with work-related stress [41, 61]. The goal of this study is to explore whether public service motivation helps employees effectively cope with these stressors.

2.2 Public service motivation and work-related stress

Public service motivation is a need or internal call to service that attracts individuals to opportunities to contribute to the well-being of their communities [62, 63]. Scholars have found that PSM is related to a range of attitudes and behaviors in organizations, which includes job satisfaction [9, 14, 64, 65] and turnover [8, 11, 14, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70]. Consistent with the theory, some have hypothesized that PSM is a resource that helps public employees cope with stress and strain [14, 15, 16, 71]. For example, according to Bakker [13], “Those who are prepared to make sacrifice for the good of society will be better able to deal with organizational stressors because they know that dealing with those stressors serves the higher goal of helping others. They will not be upset by daily hassles because they find their work important and meaningful.” Hence, if this is the case, high levels of PSM should reduce the effects of stress on employees in public sector workplaces.

Regrettably, empirical research has not confirmed the Bakker [13] hypothesis. Three studies found that PSM was associated with higher job stress among government employees in Egyptian and the French-speaking region of Switzerland [14, 15, 16]. A study by Gould-Williams et al. [14] suggested that the beneficial effects of PSM on stress were seen indirectly through the person-organizational fit. The direct relationship that PSM had to stress was argued to indicate the dark side of PSM, which undermines employee well-being by raising performance expectations. However, Liu et al. [16] study presented a more nuanced explanation of the relationship between PSM, stress, and well-being. Using a sample of Chinese police officers, these scholars found that officers with high levels of PSM reported greater mental well-being in high-stress situations but reported lower physical well-being in low-stress situations. The authors reasoned that these findings were driven by the fact that PSM attracts individuals to stressful public service work that may satisfy their internal needs while contributing to elevated levels of physical fatigue. Findings by Liu et al. [16] highlight the fact that the association that PSM has to stress will depend on the type of stress under investigation and will not automatically lead to detrimental work outcomes. Hence, PSM’s association with the job, organizational, and environmental-level stressors and their impact on work outcomes are likely to vary.

2.3 Work-related stress, job satisfaction, and turnover

Public service can be a stressful work environment given the complexity of the problems it addresses, the bureaucratic nature of its organizations, and the scrutiny it receives from its external environment. One question that deserves consideration is the extent to which the stress associated with the demands of public service work produces detrimental work outcomes. The general field has provided some answers. Job stress is associated with lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions [72, 73, 74, 75]. However, Cavanaugh et al. [76] demonstrated that not all work-related stress produces detrimental consequences. According to the authors, challenge-related stress is associated with work-related demands that provide positive feeling and achievement, which may be stressful but offer potential gains for individuals. However, hindrance-related stress is associated with work-related demands that tend to constrain or interfere with an individual’s work achievement and are not associated with potential gains. Unlike hindrance-stress, challenge-stress would produce positive work outcomes, because it does not hinder or interfere with employee work efforts or achievement needs, but instead promotes personal growth and triggers positive emotions [77]. So again, the relationship that work stress has to the attitudes and behavior of employees will depend on the type of stress in question. If this is the case, the job, organizational, and environmental stressors investigated in this study produced hindrance-related stresses and thus will be associated with high levels of PSM, lower job satisfaction, and higher turnover intentions.

For the sake of analysis, how are job, organizational, and environmental stresses related? While job, organizational, and environmental stressors produce distinct impacts on the work outcomes, these stressors are interrelated. One of the most important relationships represents the association between the organizational and environmental stressors. The stresses that employees experience in their work are inherently linked to the formal roles and demands of their jobs. Using this logic, the stresses that stem from the organizational and environment levels of analysis will magnify the stresses already present at the job level of analysis. Below are the hypotheses that were tested in this study.

Hypothesis 1: PSM will be positively related to job, organizational, and environmental stressors.

Hypothesis 2: Job-, organizational-, and environmental-level stressors will be interrelated. Namely, organizational and environmental stress will be positively related to job-level stress.

Hypothesis 3: Job, organizational, and environmental stressors will be associated with lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions.

Advertisement

3. Methodology

The data for this study was drawn in 2017 from a convenience sample of all frontline federal employees working as airport baggage and security screeners for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the state of Oregon. The survey population were employed at the same occupational classification level and served on the front line of the agency. As frontline employees, their work required direct contact with citizens during their daily work. To stay abreast of the latest rules and regulations that governed their work, all employees were required to undergo monthly recertification training sessions. Agency officials integrated the survey instrument into one of these required training sessions. The employees were provided with a workspace and instructions on how to complete the survey. The survey instructed the employees that their participation in the study was completely voluntary; their individual answers would be kept confidential; they could refuse to answer any question that made them uncomfortable; and they could end the survey at any time with no penalty or loss. Five hundred and fifty-seven (N = 557) useable surveys were collected with a response rate of 97%. The study sample was representative of the study population in terms of age, gender, and full-time status.

Several major variables were collected in this study. See Table 1 for a description of the variables and coding strategies. PSM was collected using the Kim [78] 12-item revision of the Perry [79] 24-item PSM scale, which had good internal validity (Cronbach’s α = 0.843). Job, organizational, environmental stressors were all collected using multi-survey questions and summed. Work-related stress is assumed to increase as the experience that the respondents have in the job, organizational, and environmental stressors increases. These scales were found to have good internal/composite validity (Cronbach’s α = 0.740, 0.874, 0.822, respectively). For the sake of parsimony, turnover intentions and job satisfaction were collected using single-item survey questions. While multi-item scales are preferred in some cases, empirical evidence suggest that single-item survey questions can produce reliable and robust data [80].

LabelDescription/Survey questionVariable codingMinMaxMeanSD
AgeWhat year were you born?Year of birth – Year of study197441.9413.1
EducationWhat is the highest level of education you have completed?1) No College to 5) Masters/Higher152.690.983
GenderWhat is your gender?0) Male; 1) Female010.4470.498
Job Satisfaction (Sat)How satisfied are you with your current job?1) Extremely Dissatisfied to 6) Extremely Satisfied164.031.43
Minority statusHow would you describe your racial or ethnic group?0) Minority; 1) Non-minority010.7540.431
SatisfactionHow satisfied are you with your current job?1) Extremely Dissatisfied to 6) Extremely Satisfied164.031.43
Public service motivation (PSM) [78]Attraction to Public Policy (APM)Sum PSM items 1,2,331811.822.68
Commitment to Public Interest (CPI)Sum PSM items 4,5,631813.032.55
Compassion (COM)Sum PSM items 7,8,931812.092.54
Self-sacrifice (SS)Sum PSM items 12,13, 1431812.552.73
Turnover intentionsWithin the next 2 years, how likely are you to leave your current organizational for a job in another organizational?1) Extremely unlikely to 6) Extremely likely163.691.8
Work experienceHow many years have you worked for the TSA?0166.745.14
Job stress (JS)I can count on my coworkers when I need help.1) Strongly Agree to 6) Strongly Disagree162.391.1
Coworkers treat each other with respect.1) Strongly Agree to 6) Strongly Disagree162.861.2
Employees in this organizational are treated fairly by their managers and supervisors.1) Strongly Agree to 6) Strongly Disagree163.781.4
Organizational stress (OS)This organizational cares about my opinions1) Strongly Agree to 6) Strongly Disagree164.001.41
The organizational really cares about my well-being.1) Strongly Agree to 6) Strongly Disagree163.801.46
I am fairly rewarded for the amount of effort put forth.1) Strongly Agree to 6) Strongly Disagree163.901.45
Environmental stress (ES)How concerned are you with the viewpoints that citizens hold about TSA?1) Not Concerned at all to 4) Very Concerned142.720.981
How concerned are you with negative media coverage of TSA?1) Not Concerned at all to 4) Very Concerned142.831.06
I am very interested in what others think about the TSA.1) Strongly Disagree to 6) Strongly Agree163.711.37

Table 1.

Description of study variables (N = 557).

As shown in Figure 1, this study investigated the relationships between PSM, three work-related stressors, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. The analysis of this study was conducted in three stages. First, a bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to confirm the relationships among the study variables. Second, a structural equation modeling (SEM) in AMOS was used to explore the relationships among the study variables. Third, bootstrap analysis (2000 samples) was used to test the significances of potential mediation effects. Statistical significance was set at 0.05, two-tailed. All regression weights are standardized maximum likelihood estimates, unless otherwise noted.

Figure 1.

Study model.

Advertisement

4. Findings

Table 2 displays the demographic characteristics of the sample. Most of the respondents were between 18 and 40 years old (52%), had some to no college experience (53%), were male (55%), identified as White (75%), and gained an average of seven years of work experience in the TSA. Table 3 presents the respondents’ experiences with the job, organizational, and environmental stressors. This data demonstrates that the respondents’ experiences with work stress vary. The majority of the respondents indicate that they have relatively low levels of job stress. A vast majority of the respondents “strongly to somewhat” agree that their co-workers treat each other with respect (88%), can be counted on when help is needed (79%), and their organizational treats them fairly (62%).

N%
Age
18 to 30 years old13125%
31 to 40 years old14327%
41 to 50 years old9017%
51+ years old16731%
Education Level
No College356%
Some College26047%
AA/Technical12222%
BA12322%
Masters/Higher173%
Gender
Male29355%
Female23745%
Race and Ethnicity
Black/African American183%
Hispanic/ Latino224%
White/Caucasian39975%
Asian/Pacific Islander408%
Native American/ Alaska Native51%
MultiRacial479%
Work Experience
1 year and less13023%
1 to 5 years14326%
5 to 10 years13023%
10 years and more15428%

Table 2.

Respondents characteristics and control variables.

Response categories
Job stressorsI can count on my coworkers when I need help.Strongly AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree
20%40%28%6%4%2%
Coworkers treat each other with respect.Strongly AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree
10%33%36%11%6%5%
Employees in this organizational are treated fairly by their managers and supervisors.Strongly AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree
4%15%33%16%14%19%
Organizational stressorsThis organizational cares about my opinionsStrongly AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree
3%11%27%20%18%21%
The organizational really cares about my well-being.Strongly AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree
3%17%28%18%16%18%
I am fairly rewarded for the amount of effort put forth.Strongly AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree
3%16%25%19%18%19%
Environmental stressorsHow concerned are you with the viewpoints that citizens hold about TSA?Not Concerned at allSlightly ConcernedSomewhat ConcernedVery Concerned
13%26%36%25%
How concerned are you with negative media coverage of TSA?Not Concerned at allSlightly ConcernedSomewhat ConcernedVery Concerned
13%26%36%25%
I am very interested in what others think about the TSA.Strongly DisagreeDisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeStrongly Agree
7%14%17%33%20%9%

Table 3.

Work-related stressors percentage results by response category.

There is also a high agreement among the respondents that environmental stress is high in their work. The vast majority of the respondents indicate that they are “somewhat to very” concerned about the citizens views (61%) and negative media coverage (61%). However, the respondents appear to disagree about the level of organizational stresses they experience. While the majority of the respondents “strongly to somewhat” disagree that their organization cares about their opinions and well-being and provides fair rewards, a lessor but considerable number of employees differ with these assessments.

Table 4 presents data regarding the correlations between the study variables. The correlations between demographic characteristics of the respondents and the work stressors are particularly interesting. Age and years of experience were both positively correlated with the job stressors. The respondents who were older and had more years of work experience reported experiencing less job stress than their counterparts who were younger and had fewer years of work experience. However, the opposite was true for the relationship between the environmental stressors and age. Concerns about the environmental stressors appeared to increase with age. Older respondents reported being more concerned about the environmental stressors than those who were younger. Also notable is the fact that the organizational stressors were unrelated to all the control/demographic variables in this study except for years of experience. The salience of the organizational stressors increased as the respondents’ years of experience increased. The correlations among the work-related stressors were also noteworthy. The job and organizational stressors appear to work in similar directions. The respondents who indicated that they experienced elevated levels of job stress also reported elevated levels of organizational stress. However, the job and organizational stressors worked in opposing directions when compared to the environmental stressors. The respondents who reported experiencing high levels of the job or organizational stressors also reported experiencing lower levels of the environmental stressors.

1234567891011
1. Age1
2. Education0.0221
3. Experience0.501**−0.129**1
4. Gender−0.089*−0.065−0.092*1
5. Minority Status0.233**−0.0230.098*−0.0171
6. Job Stress−0.113**−0.0330.110**0.019−0.0311.
7. Organizational Stress−0.042−0.0450.198**−0.020−0.0350.648**1
8. Environmental Stress0.177**0.0160.0820.0560.070−0.155**−0.112**1.
9. Satisfaction0.126**−0.057−0.0700.0100.085−0.525**−0.560**0.110**1
10. Turnover−0.314**0.080−0.134**−0.003−0.145**0.339**0.371**−0.095**−0.405**1
11. PSM−0.0130.055−0.121**−0.049−0.009−0.229**−0.255**0.307**0.181**−0.0591

Table 4.

Bivariate correlations among study variables.

* = p ≤ 0.05; ** = p ≤ 0.01.

Two SEM models were utilized to test the relationship between PSM, the work stressors, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. The first model explored these relationships with control variables, while the second model excluded them. The first model had lower fit to the data and did not result in any meaningful differences regarding the relationships among the study variables. As a result, the second model was adopted for parsimony and improved model fit. The fit indices indicate that the statistical model has a good fit to the data (GFI = 0.998, NFI = 0.996, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.033). The SEM findings are displayed in Figure 2 as standardized regression estimate, and the significance of the estimates is presented in Table 5.

Figure 2.

Standardized regression estimates (GFI = 0.998, NFI = 0.996, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.033) (** = * = p ≤ 0.05; ** = p ≤ 0.01).

Model pathsβP
ES ← PSM0.307***
OS←PSM−0.243***
OS←ES−0.0380.383
JS ← PSM−0.0470.171
JS ← ES−0.0700.039
JS ← OS0.628***
Sat ← JS−0.275***
Sat ← OS−0.380***
Sat ← ES0.0250.463
Turnover←JS0.0910.080
Turnover←OS0.1610.002
Turnover←ES−0.0340.375
Turnover←Sat−0.264***

Table 5.

Study variables standardized estimates by model paths.

*** = p ≤ 0.001; ** = p ≤ 0.01; * = p ≤ 0.05.

Three hypotheses were advanced in this study. Hypothesis 1 suggested that PSM would be positively associated with the job, organizational, and environmental stressors. The findings regarding this hypothesis were mixed. PSM only had a positive relationship with the environmental stressors, maintained negative relationships with the organizational-level stressors, and was not significantly related to the job-level stressors. While the respondents with high levels of PSM reported experiencing significantly higher levels of environmental stressors, they also reported significantly lower levels of the organizational level stressors than their counterpoints with lower levels of PSM. Even more, PSM’s association with environmental stressors appears to be the strongest relationship, when compared to its association with the organizational stressors.

Hypothesis 2 posited that the job stressors would be positively associated with the organizational and environmental stressors. Once more, the findings of this were mixed. While both the organizational and environmental stressors were related to the job-level stressors, the directions of one of these relationships were different. Job-level stressors were positively related to the organizational stressors but negatively related to the environmental stressors. This suggests that the respondents who reported experiencing high levels of the job stressors were significantly more likely to report experiencing high levels of the organizational stressors but significantly more likely to report experiencing lower levels of the environmental stressors. Similarly unexpected was that no meaningful relationships were found between the organizational and environmental stressors.

Hypothesis 3 suggested that the job, organizational, and environmental stressors would be associated with lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions. The findings regarding this hypothesis were also mixed. As expected, the organizational stressors were related to both job satisfaction and turnover intentions. The respondents who experienced high levels of the organizational stressors were significantly more likely to report having lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions. However, while the job stressors were also negatively related to job satisfaction, they had no significant direct relationship with turnover intentions. Even more surprising was the finding that the environmental stressors were not directly related to either job satisfaction or turnover intentions.

The finding of this study also provided pertinent information regarding the significance of the mediations among the study variables and the work outcomes. Given the fact that the organizational stressors maintained significant direct relationships with both turnover intentions and job satisfaction, it is important to determine the extent to which these relationships were fully or partially mediated by the job stressors and/or the work outcomes. Bootstrapping was used to clarify this issue. A full mediation is present when the significance of the indirect pathway reduces the significance of the direct pathway, whereas a partial mediation is present when both the direct and indirect pathways are significant, even though one pathway may be dominant. As shown in Table 6, the findings revealed that the association that the organizational stressors had to job satisfaction and turnover intentions were partially mediated by the job stressors and job satisfaction, respectfully. However, the direct relationship between organizational stressors and turnover was the most dominant path when considering the pathway through job satisfaction, whereas the indirect path though the job stressors was the dominate pathway in terms of its association with job satisfaction.

AnalysisDirect effect (x → y)Indirect effectResult
OS→ Sat → Turnover0.075*0.047**Partial
OS→ JS → Sat → Turnover0.075*0.021**Partial
OS → JS → Sat−0.141**−0.173**Partial

Table 6.

Bootstrap mediation analysis unstandardized results.

** = p ≤ 0.001; * = p ≤ 0.05; nm = not mediated.

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

This book chapter presented a study that investigated how PSM is related to employee attitudes through its association with work-related stressors. This is one of the only known studies to explore the relationships that PSM has to a range of different types of stressors found in public service work organizations and environments. Unsurprisingly, the findings show that the job, organizational, and environmental stressors were detrimental to the work attitudes of employees, directly and indirectly. Employees who experienced high levels of job, organizational and job stressors were significantly more likely to report lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intentions. However, in contradiction to existing research [14, 15] and in support of Liu et al. [16], the influence that PSM appeared to have on job satisfaction and turnover intentions depended on the type of stress in question. PSM was associated with lower levels of organizational stressors, which increased job satisfaction and lowered turnover intentions. PSM had no direct relationship with the job stressors when organizational and environmental stressors were considered. Instead, PSM maintained indirect associations with the job stressors through its associations with the organizational and environmental stressors. The only potentially damaging impact PSM had on the work-related stressors was its association with the environmental stressors. The respondents with high levels of PSM were significantly more likely to report more concerns about the environmental stressors, which was associated with lower job stress concerns. However, outside of the respondents’ job stress concerns, environmental stressors were not directly associated with their job satisfaction nor turnover intentions. There are several noteworthy implications of these findings.

Foremost, the findings of this study suggest that the connection that PSM has to work stress depends on the type of stress in question. Consistent with the findings of Liu et al. [16], this study demonstrated that PSM did not impact all work-related stressors in the same way. PSM appeared to increase the concerns that employees had regarding the environmental stressors, lowered concerns regarding the organizational, and had no direct relationship with their job stress concerns. These findings suggest that the association that PSM had to the stressors is neither monolithic nor uniform but is complex and often surprising. The findings also challenge the use of global measures of stress in PSM studies. While previous studies have found that PSM was associated with higher global measures of work-related stress, their results should be interpreted carefully. Considering the complex relationships that PSM has to the individualized categories of stress found in this study, the results of global measures of stress may be easily overgeneralized. Global measures of work stress may not be sensitive to the fine-tuned relationship that PSM has to the individualized dimensions of work stress.

Second, the findings of this study suggest that individuals with high levels of PSM have elevated concerns regarding the environmental stressors. The respondents who indicated that they possessed high levels of PSM were also significantly more likely to report experiencing high levels of environmental stress. While there are several potential explanations offered in the literature, Boardman and Sundquist [81] perceived that the public service efficacy theory (PPSE) is one of the most compelling. This theory suggests that employees with high levels of PSM are likely to believe that public organizations offer valuable contributions to the community because of their own attractions to public service missions and are inclined to believe that the members of the public who receive these benefits share their positive viewpoints. When the viewpoints of public employees and citizens conflict regarding the contributions of their work, increased stress will result. This suggests that public managers must ensure that they not only remind their employees of the value of their work, but also work to communicate this value to the communities that are being served.

Third, despite the elevated concerns that employees appear to have regarding the environmental stressors, the findings of this study may suggest that the environmental stressors were the least important predictors of the work attitudes and behaviors of employees included in this study. No meaningful differences were found between the environmental stressors, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Yet this finding should not be interpreted as an indication that environmental stressors were unimportant to the attitudes and behaviors of employees. On the contrary, the environmental stressors, such as negative media coverage and citizen criticism, are likely to influence employees’ perceptions of prestige [82]. The perception of prestige theory argues that individuals are compelled to seek relationships that maintain and/or enhance positive self-images. Relationships that are detrimental to a positive self-image lead to lower job satisfaction [83, 84] and higher turnover intentions [85, 86]. As a result, it is critical that managers and supervisors foster strategies that help public employees cope with environmental stressors before they destructively affect their self-image.

Fourth, this study suggests that public employees prioritize work-related stresses differently. For example, the findings demonstrated that the environmental stressors were negatively related to the job stressors. That is, the respondents who reported feeling high levels of environmental stress also reported having significantly lower job stress. The reason for this finding is not entirely clear. From one perspective it could be that environmental stress is not as concerning to employees when their job stresses are high. Hence, when compared to the environmental stressors, the job stressors may be the most important to public employees. If this is the case, this would mean that the relationship that job stress has to environmental stress was misspecified in the study model. Job stress may work to impact environmental stress, rather than vice versa. However, on the other hand, the findings also support the opposite viewpoint that job stressors become less salient concerns when environmental stressors are high. It is clear that more research is needed to improve the field’s understanding of the effects of environmental stressors on job stress, as well as other work outcomes unexplored in this study.

Relatedly, the work-related stressors were not equal in their influence on the work attitudes. While the organizational and job stressors were both related to job satisfaction and turnover intentions, the relationships that the organizational stressors had to these outcomes were stronger. This suggests the most effective way that managers can improve job satisfaction and turnover among public employees in high-stress situations is to address their organizational stress concerns. The organizational stressors investigated in this study centered on how much employees believed their organization cared about their opinions and well-being and offered fair rewards. The stress associated with the lack of these opportunities not only affected the respondents’ job stress concerns but also significantly lowered their job satisfaction and raised their turnover intentions.

Furthermore, while this study’s findings will add to the field of research on the benefits of PSM in public organizations, they should be interpreted cautiously. Two weaknesses should be acknowledged. For one, this study relied on a cross-sectional design that limited the confirmation of causality among the study variables. It was assumed that PSM modifies the experiences employees have regarding work-related stress when the opposite relationship may be the case. Work stress may vary the levels of PSM possessed by employees over time. While longitudinal or experimental research designs are better equipped to isolate and test causal relationships, this study does confirm that meaningful relationships between PSM and work stressors are present. A second weakness of this study is that it drew its data from a convenience sample of Transportation Security Agency branch in Portland, Oregon. Even though the results are comparable to similar organizations in similar circumstances, there may be limits to the generalizability of this study. This presents an opportunity for future research to confirm the findings of this study with data extracted from a broader sample of organizations.

In conclusion, the public sector is unique in terms of the kinds of stress that public employees are expected to work under. However, the results of this study suggest that these concerns can be effectively managed. This study supports the view that effective stress management is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Even though individuals with high levels of PSM may be better suited to handle some kinds of stressors of public service, they can be more sensitive to other types of stressors, namely those that originate from the social context of public organizations. As result, effective stress management must include not only the recruitment of individuals with high levels of PSM to public service, but also the development of strategies that help public servants who are working in environments of low citizen trust and hostile media coverage. Effectively managing these various sources of stress will go a long way toward reducing turnover, increasing satisfaction, and improving the well-being of public servants.

References

  1. 1. Ferry K. Workplace Stress Continues to Mount; 2019. Available from: https://www.kornferry.com/insights/this-week-in-leadership/workplace-stress-motivation
  2. 2. Yaribeygi H et al. The impact of stress on body function: A review. EXCLI Journal. 2017;16:1057-1072
  3. 3. Colligan TW, Higgins EM. Workplace stress. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health. 2006;21(2):89-97
  4. 4. Lambert EG, Lynne Hogan N, Barton SM. The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. The Social Science Journal. 2001;38(2):233-250
  5. 5. Lum L et al. Explaining nursing turnover intent: Job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organizational commitment? Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1998;19(3):305-320
  6. 6. Mobley WH. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1977;62(2):237-240
  7. 7. Government OA, Public Sector Workers More Stressed than the Private Sector; 2018. Available from: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/public-sector-workers-more-stressed-than-the-private-sector/54143/
  8. 8. Bright L. Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? American Review of Public Administration. 2008;38(2):149-166
  9. 9. Homberg F, McCarthy D, Tabvuma V. A meta-analysis of the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction. Public Administration Review. 2015;75(5):711-722
  10. 10. Lynggaard M, Pedersen MJ, Andersen LB. Exploring the context dependency of the PSM–performance relationship. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2018;38(3):332-354
  11. 11. Bright L. Does person-organization fit mediate the relationship between public service motivation and the job performance of public employees? Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2007;27(4):361-379
  12. 12. Boyd N et al. Sense of community, sense of community responsibility, and public service motivation as predictors of employee well-being and engagement in public service organizations. The American Review of Public Administration. 2017;48(5):428-443
  13. 13. Bakker AB. A job demands–resources approach to public service motivation. Public Administration Review. 2015;75(5):723-732
  14. 14. Gould-Williams JS, Mostafa AMS, Bottomley P. Public service motivation and employee outcomes in the egyptian public sector: Testing the mediating effect of person-organization fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2015;25(2):597-622
  15. 15. Giauque D, Anderfuhren-Biget S, Varone F. Stress perception in public organisations: Expanding the job demands–job resources model by including public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2013;33(1):58-83
  16. 16. Liu B, Yang K, Yu W. Work-related stressors and health-related outcomes in public service: Examining the role of public service motivation. The American Review of Public Administration. 2015;45(6):653-673
  17. 17. Jiang Q , Lee H, Xu D. Challenge stressors, work engagement, and affective commitment among Chinese public servants. Public Personnel Management. 2020;49(4):547-570
  18. 18. Deniz N, Noyan A, Ertosun ÖG. Linking person-job fit to job stress: The mediating effect of perceived person-organization fit. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;207:369-376
  19. 19. Koolhaas JM et al. Stress revisited: A critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2011;35(5):1291-1301
  20. 20. Folkman S, Lazarus RS. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1984
  21. 21. Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979;24(2):285-308
  22. 22. Johnson JV, Hall EM. Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health. 1988;78(10):1336-1342
  23. 23. French J, Rogers W, Cobb S. A Model Of Person-Environment Fit. Coping and Adaptation. New York: Basic Books Inc.; 1974
  24. 24. Beehr TA, Newman JE. Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology. 1978;31(4):665-699
  25. 25. Greenberg N, Carr JA, Summers CH. Causes and consequences of Stress1. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 2002;42(3):508-516
  26. 26. Quick JD, Horn RS, Quick JC. Health consequences of stress. In: Job Stress. New York: Routledge; 2014. pp. 19-36
  27. 27. Triplett R, Mullings JL, Scarborough KE. Work-related stress and coping among correctional officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1996;24(4):291-308
  28. 28. West JP, West CM. Job stress and public sector occupations: Implications for personnel managers. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 1989;9(3):46-65
  29. 29. Pendleton M et al. Stress and strain among police, firefighters, and government workers: A comparative analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1989;16(2):196-210
  30. 30. Huckabee RG. Stress in corrections: An overview of the issues. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1992;20(5):479-486
  31. 31. Burke RJ. Stress in Policing: Sources, Consequences and Interventions. London: Routledge; 2016
  32. 32. Brown JM, Campbell EA. Stress and Policing: Sources and Strategies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1994
  33. 33. Carpenter GSJ et al. Social support, stress, and suicidal ideation in professional firefighters. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2015;39(2):191-196
  34. 34. Hamann DJ, Foster NT. An exploration of job demands, job control, stress, and attitudes in public, nonprofit, and for-profit employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2014;34(4):332-355
  35. 35. Tankha G. A comparative study of role stress in government and private hospital nurses. Journal of Health Management. 2006;8(1):11-22
  36. 36. Cooper CL, Marshall J. Occupational sources of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1976;49(1):11-28
  37. 37. Motowidlo SJ, Packard JS, Manning MR. Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1986;71(4):618
  38. 38. Hurrell JJ Jr, Nelson DL, Simmons BL. Measuring job stressors and strains: Where we have been, where we are, and where we need to go. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1998;3(4):368
  39. 39. Bogg J, Cooper C. Job satisfaction, mental health, and occupational stress among senior civil servants. Human Relations. 1995;48(3):327-341
  40. 40. Ivancevich JM, Matteson MT. Stress and Work: A Managerial Perspective. Glenview, Ill: Scott Foresman; 1980
  41. 41. Schaufeli WB, Peeters MC. Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management. 2000;7(1):19-48
  42. 42. Warwick DP, Meade M. A Theory of Public Bureaucracy: Politics, Personality, and Organization in the State Department. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1980
  43. 43. Lipsky M. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2010
  44. 44. Jung CS. Why are goals important in the public sector? Exploring the benefits of goal clarity for reducing turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2014;24(1):209-234
  45. 45. Elovainio M, Kivimäki M. Occupational stresses, goal clarity, control, and strain among nurses in the Finnish health care system. Research in Nursing & Health. 1996;19(6):517-524
  46. 46. Smock CD. The influence of psychological stress on the 'intolerance of ambiguity'. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955;50(2):177-182
  47. 47. Dumitrescu D, Mughan A. Mass media and democratic politics. In: Handbook of Politics. New York: Springer; 2010. pp. 477-491
  48. 48. Eva, Opperhuizen A, Hans Klijn E, Schouten K. How do media, political and regulatory agendas influence one another in high risk policy issues? Policy & Politics. 2020;48(3):461-483
  49. 49. Blumler J, Gurevitch M. Political communication systems and democratic values. In: The Crisis of Public Communication. London: Routledge; 2002. pp. 105-116
  50. 50. Pfau M et al. The influence of individual communication media on public confidence in democratic institutions. Southern Communication Journal. 1998;63(2):91-112
  51. 51. Gerbner G et al. The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile number 11. Journal of Communication. 1980;30(3):10-29
  52. 52. Liu BF, Horsley JS, Yang K. Overcoming negative media coverage: Does government communication matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012;22(3):597-621
  53. 53. Mazzoleni G, Schulz W. "mediatization" of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication. 1999;16(3):247-261
  54. 54. Thorbjornsrud K, Figenschou TU, Ihlen Ø. Mediatization in public bureaucracies: A typology. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research. 2014;39(1):3-22
  55. 55. Fredriksson M, Schillemans T, Pallas J. Determinants of organizational mediatization: An analysis of the adaptation of swedish government agencies to news media. Public Administration. 2015;93(4):1049-1067
  56. 56. Schillemans T. Mediatization of Public Services. Germany: Peter Lang Frankfurt; 2012
  57. 57. Bekkers V, Moody R, Edwards A. Micro-mobilization, social media and coping strategies: Some Dutch experiences. Policy & Internet. 2011;3(4):1-29
  58. 58. Klijn EH et al. Public managers, media influence, and governance: Three research traditions empirically explored. Administration & Society. 2016;48(9):1036-1058
  59. 59. Pew Research Center. Americans’ Views of Government: Low Trust, but some Positive Performance Ratings; 2020. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/09/14/americans-views-of-government-low-trust-but-some-positive-performance-ratings/
  60. 60. Schillemans T, Karlsen R, Kolltveit K. Why do civil servants experience media-stress differently and what can be done about it? Policy & Politics. 2019;47(4):599-620
  61. 61. Stevens DJ. Origins of police officer stress before and after 9/11. The Police Journal. 2004;77(2):145-173
  62. 62. Perry J, Wise L. The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review. 1990;50(3):367-373
  63. 63. Vandenabeele W, Brewer GA, Ritz A. Past, present, and future of public service motivation researcH. Public Administration. 2014;92(4):779-789
  64. 64. Naff KC, Crum J. Working for america does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration. 1999;19(4):5-16
  65. 65. Kim S. Does person-organization fit matter in the public-sector? Testing the mediating effect of person-organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation and work attitudes. Public Administration Review. 2012;72(6):830-840
  66. 66. Quratulain S, Khan AK. How does employees’ public service motivation get affected? A conditional process analysis of the effects of person–job fit and work pressure. Public Personnel Management. 2015;44(2):266-289
  67. 67. Liu B, Tang TL-P, Yang K. When does public service motivation fuel the job satisfaction fire? The joint moderation of person–organization fit and needs–supplies fit. Public Management Review. 2015;17(6):876-900
  68. 68. Christensen RK, Wright BE. The effects of public service motivation on job choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person-organization fit and person-job fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2011;21(4):723-743
  69. 69. Bright L. Where does public service motivation count the Most in government work environments? A preliminary empirical investigation and hypotheses. Public Personnel Management. 2013;42(1):5-26
  70. 70. Caillier JG. Towards a better understanding of public service motivation and mission valence in public agencies. Public Management Review. 2015;17(9):1217-1236
  71. 71. Knoop R. Relieving stress through value-rich work. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1994;134(6):829-836
  72. 72. Arshadi N, Damiri H. The relationship of job stress with turnover intention and job performance: Moderating role of OBSE. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;84:706-710
  73. 73. Jou R-C, Kuo C-W, Tang M-L. A study of job stress and turnover tendency among air traffic controllers: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 2013;57:95-104
  74. 74. Dodanwala TC, San Santoso D. The mediating role of job stress on the relationship between job satisfaction facets and turnover intention of the construction professionals. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2021;29(4):1777-1796
  75. 75. Sesen H, Ertan SS. The effect of the employee perceived training on job satisfaction: The mediating role of workplace stress. European Journal of Training and Development. 2021;46(9):953-973
  76. 76. Cavanaugh MA et al. An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000;85(1):65
  77. 77. Crawford ER, LePine JA, Rich BL. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010;95(5):834
  78. 78. Kim S. Revising Perry's measurement scale of public service motivation. American Review of Public Administration. 2009;39(2):149-163
  79. 79. Perry J. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 1996;6(1):5-22
  80. 80. Wanous JP, Reichers AE, Hudy MJ. Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997;82(2):247
  81. 81. Boardman C, Sundquist E. Toward understanding work motivation: Worker attitudes and the perception of effective public service. The American Review of Public Administration. 2009:39(5):519-535
  82. 82. Bright L. Does perceptions of organizational prestige mediate the relationship between public service motivation, job satisfaction, and the turnover intentions of Federal Employees? Public Personnel Management. 2020;50:009102602095281
  83. 83. Tuna M et al. The effects of the perceived external prestige of the organization on employee deviant workplace behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2016;28(2):366-396
  84. 84. Yim Y, Schafer BD. Police and their perceived image: How community influence officers’ job satisfaction. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal. 2009;10(1):17-29
  85. 85. Akgunduz Y, Bardakoglu O. The impacts of perceived organizational prestige and organization identification on turnover intention: The mediating effect of psychological empowerment. Current Issues in Tourism. 2017:20(14):1510-1526
  86. 86. Shim DC, Park HH, Eom TH. Street-level bureaucrats’ turnover intention: Does public service motivation matter? International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2017;83(3):563-582

Written By

Leonard Bright

Submitted: 02 June 2023 Reviewed: 31 July 2023 Published: 08 September 2023

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All